DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Feasibility of an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) As a Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technical Feasibility of an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) As a Future Technical Feasibility of an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) as a Future Option for Fast Reactor Cycles -Integrate a Small Metal-Fueled Fast Reactor and Pyroprocessing Facilities- FINAL Report Research Project on “Sustainability of Nuclear” November 30, 2016 The Sasakawa Peace Foundation 1. Foreword 1.1 Objectives The concept of an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), which integrates a sodium-cooled small metal-fueled fast reactor with pyroprocessing facilities, could be an option for future fast reactor cycles. Combination of the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) with metallic fuel core and pyroprocessing has been considered second to that of the SFR with MOX fuel core and the aqueous reprocessing in the national project on the commercialization of the fast reactor cycle systems in Japan [1]. Basic and generic researches have been carried out in this area. In order to research the technical feasibility of this IFR concept, the technical viability and issues standing in the way of verifying the potential to reduce both the volume of radioactive waste and the level of hazard (radiotoxicity) were examined by using the example of processing the fuel debris generated in conjunction with the TEPCO (currently Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Incorporated) Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (1F NPS) Accident of March 2011. The process consists of fabricating fuel from the transuranium (TRU) elements such as plutonium, neptunium and americium which were recovered through fuel debris reprocessing and burning this fuel in the reactor thereby gradually reducing TRU. Potential research topics for cooperation between the US and Japan in the field of fast reactor cycles shall also be examined. In particular, the technical feasibility and issues that need to be solved have been summarized in regard to pyroprocessing methods, which are thought to be effective at processing fuel debris, and the concept of a small metal-fueled fast reactor, which is superior in terms of safety. Necessary measures to treat fuel debris will be determined after the removal of the debris from the plants. In this study, however, the IFR concept that can reduce the amount of TRU in the debris by reprocessing debris, fabricating fuels with recovered U and TRU, and burning TRU in a small SFR will be examined as one of the debris treatment options. 1.2 Assignment of Research Issues The following topics were researched individually in order to examine the technical feasibility of a system for processing fuel debris from the 1F NPS and recycling it as fuel in a reactor. (1) Examination of the concept of pyroprocessing systems (2) Examination of the concept of a small metal-fueled fast reactor (3) Evaluation of the safety design concept of a small metal-fueled fast reactor 1 1.3 Research Period October 1, 2015 through November 30, 2016 1.4 Implementation Method The Sasakawa Peace Foundation consigned manufacturers to research the technical feasibility of each of the topics. (1) Examination of the concept of pyroprocessing systems (Toshiba Corporation) (2) Examination of the concept of a small metal-fueled fast reactor (Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy, Ltd.) (3) Evaluation of the safety design concept of a small metal-fueled fast reactor (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.) During the examination of these topics a workshop comprised of Japanese experts was formed. Nuclear Salon (NSF) was contracted by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation to serve as the secretariat for the workshop and the workshop continued to debate these subjects while receiving periodic reports from the three manufacturers consigned to do the research. Meetings were held three times in JFY 2015 and three times in JFY 2016. Furthermore, on August 26, 2016, experts in the fields of reactor safety and pyroprocessing (Dr. Tanju Sofu and Dr. Mark A. Williamson, respectively) were invited from the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in the United States (US) to exchange opinions with the members of the workshop. In addition, a debrief meeting upon the research project on “Sustainability of Nuclear” was held on November 18, 2016 where three experts in the fields of fast reactor cycles, energy technologies and innovative technologies from the US Department of Energy, ANL and the Columbia University (Dr. Sal J. Golub, Dr. Yoon I. Chang and Dr. Nicola De Blasio, respectively) were invited. In this meeting, the result of this study was reported mainly for the people associated with nuclear engineering and/or Fukushima and related discussion was conducted. The members of the workshop are as follows: Chairman: Yutaka Sagayama, Assistant to the President, Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) Members: Yoichi Fuji-ie, Representative Director, NPO Nuclear Salon Akira Yamaguchi, Professor, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Management, the University of Tokyo Koji Morita, Professor, Department of Applied Quantum Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University 2 Reiko Fujita, Program Manager, Impulsing Paradigm Change through Disruptive Technologies (ImPACT), Japan Science and Technology Agency Takanari Ogata, Fuel and Core Region Leader, Nuclear Technology Research Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry Shoji Kotake, Executive Officer, Projects Development Department, the Japan Atomic Power Company Observers: Koji Sato, Japan Atomic Energy Agency Takashi Namba, Japan Atomic Energy Agency Consigned Technical Research Teams: Toshiba Corporation Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy, Ltd Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. The Sasakawa Peace Foundation: President, Nobuo Tanaka and related persons 3 2. Research Results The IFR concept, or rather, a closed fuel cycle system that combines a small SFR that has inherent safety features with a pyrochemical reprocessing facility and an injection casting fuel fabrication facility all on the same site, was proposed in 1984 by ANL. This system has the following characteristics: - Effective utilization of uranium resources: fuel breeding using fast neutrons - Inherent safety features (passive safety): Many core reactivity coefficients are negative thereby producing a large negative feedback to increases in coolant temperature - Waste management: Reduction in the amount of radioactive waste generated and decreases in long-term radiotoxicity (hazard level) through the burning of minor actinides (MA; neptunium, americium, curium, etc.) - High proliferation resistance: The employment of pyroprocessing by which plutonium cannot be separated and fuel transport is unnecessary due to the co-location of reactor and fuel cycle systems - Economic competitiveness: Compact, closed fuel cycle, a small fast reactor (factory-produced, assembled on site) The IFR concept was constructed through research and development (R&D) using the experimental fast breeder reactor EBR-II and associated fuel cycle facilities. From 1985 the US Department of Energy conducted R&D on this type of metal-fueled pool reactors as part of its advanced liquid metal reactor project, but this project was cancelled by the US Congress in 1994. However, General Electric Co. (GE) in the US (currently GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Ltd. (GEH)) continued its R&D on Power Reactor Innovative Small Modules (PRISM), and in 2012 GEH made a public appeal to combine the concept of PRISM with an advanced recycling center as a solution to the problem of disposing of UK’s plutonium inventory (the management of the UK’s large plutonium stockpile). In order to investigate the technical feasibility of this IFR concept as a future option for fast reactor cycles in Japan, processing of fuel debris from the TEPCO 1F NPS was examined as an example. 2.1 Fuel Debris from TEPCO 1F NPS As a result of the tsunami created in conjunction with the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011, the TEPCO 1F NPS lost all electric power supply thereby causing a serious accident in which the fuel in Units 1-3 melted. In the course of the accident progression, melted fuel was presumed to react with the cladding tube, i.e. the sheath for the 4 fuel, and other structural materials such as the reactor vessel, thereby transforming into materials with complicated compositions and shapes. They are referred to as fuel debris. Melted fuel may accumulate in the reactor vessel as fuel debris (core region debris), or in some cases, it may melt through the reactor vessel to the outside. In this case, the melted fuel would react with concrete thereby generating fuel debris with an even more complicated chemical composition and shape (MCCI1 debris). How to handle this fuel debris is an important issue that must be solved in order to decommission the 1F NPS. Therefore, we have examined a system for appropriately processing this fuel debris using a pyroprocessing method, extracting the uranium and TRU from the fuel debris, using the recovered TRU to fabricate fuel and recycling it in a small metal-fueled fast reactor with inherent safety. When examining processing methods, it is necessary to understand the composition of fuel debris. However, at current time we have not been able to sample the fuel debris inside the plants and subject it to analysis. During this research, we examined past knowledge concerning debris characteristics and composition based on documents and information that are publicly available. The amount of uranium oxide, cladding tubes, and structural materials inside the reactors has been assessed for each of Units 1-3 and it is estimated that there were approximately 300 tons of uranium oxide and approximately 530 tons of material including structural materials [2]. Furthermore, the distribution of melted fuel inside the plants has been estimated using an analysis code [3], and it is estimated that there is approximately 120 tons of core region debris, and approximately 740 tons of MCCI debris (Refer to Figure 1 [4]). Moreover, the composition and characteristics of fuel debris have been estimated using a calculating code [5], and information on the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident that occurred in the US [6] has been examined along with the impact of the unique events that took place during the 1F NPS Accident [5] [7] [8].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category
    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC １．DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体／海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software ２．Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
    [Show full text]
  • An Advanced Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Core Concept Using Uranium-Free Metallic Fuels for Maximizing TRU Burning Rate
    sustainability Article An Advanced Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Core Concept Using Uranium-Free Metallic Fuels for Maximizing TRU Burning Rate Wuseong You and Ser Gi Hong * Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Deogyeong-daero, GiHeung-gu, Yongin, Gyeonggi-do 446-701, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-31-201-2782 Received: 24 October 2017; Accepted: 28 November 2017; Published: 1 December 2017 Abstract: In this paper, we designed and analyzed advanced sodium-cooled fast reactor cores using uranium-free metallic fuels for maximizing burning rate of transuranics (TRU) nuclides from PWR spent fuels. It is well known that the removal of fertile nuclides such as 238U from fuels in liquid metal cooled fast reactor leads to the degradation of important safety parameters such as the Doppler coefficient, coolant void worth, and delayed neutron fraction. To resolve the degradation of the Doppler coefficient, we considered adding resonant nuclides to the uranium-free metallic fuels. The analysis results showed that the cores using uranium-free fuels loaded with tungsten instead of uranium have a significantly lower burnup reactivity swing and more negative Doppler coefficients than the core using uranium-free fuels without resonant nuclides. In addition, we considered the use of axially central B4C absorber region and moderator rods to further improve safety parameters such as sodium void worth, burnup reactivity swing, and the Doppler coefficient. The results of the analysis showed that the final design core can consume ~353 kg per cycle and satisfies self-controllability under unprotected accidents. The fuel cycle analysis showed that the PWR–SFR coupling fuel cycle option drastically reduces the amount of waste going to repository and the SFR burner can consume the amount of TRUs discharged from 3.72 PWRs generating the same electricity.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast-Spectrum Reactors Technology Assessment
    Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 4: Advancing Clean Electric Power Technologies Technology Assessments Advanced Plant Technologies Biopower Clean Power Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Value- Added Options Carbon Dioxide Capture for Natural Gas and Industrial Applications Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies Crosscutting Technologies in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Fast-spectrum Reactors Geothermal Power High Temperature Reactors Hybrid Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems Hydropower Light Water Reactors Marine and Hydrokinetic Power Nuclear Fuel Cycles Solar Power Stationary Fuel Cells U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle ENERGY Wind Power Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Fast-spectrum Reactors Chapter 4: Technology Assessments Background and Current Status From the initial conception of nuclear energy, it was recognized that full realization of the energy content of uranium would require the development of fast reactors with associated nuclear fuel cycles.1 Thus, fast reactor technology was a key focus in early nuclear programs in the United States and abroad, with the first usable nuclear electricity generated by a fast reactor—Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I)—in 1951. Test and/or demonstration reactors were built and operated in the United States, France, Japan, United Kingdom, Russia, India, Germany, and China—totaling about 20 reactors with 400 operating years to date. These previous reactors and current projects are summarized in Table 4.H.1.2 Currently operating test reactors include BOR-60 (Russia), Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) (India), and China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) (China). The Russian BN-600 demonstration reactor has been operating as a power reactor since 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Technology Development Plan Sodium Fast Reactor Mechanistic Source Term – Metal Fuel Radionuclide Release
    ANL-ART-38 Regulatory Technology Development Plan Sodium Fast Reactor Mechanistic Source Term – Metal Fuel Radionuclide Release Nuclear Engineering Division About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Online Access: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991 and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available free via DOE’s SciTech Connect (http://www.osti.gov/scitech/) Reports not in digital format may be purchased by the public from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS): U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd Alexandria, VA 22312 www.ntis.gov Phone: (800) 553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 Fax: (703) 605-6900 Email: [email protected] Reports not in digital format are available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI): U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P. O . B o x 6 2 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 www.osti.gov Phone: (865) 576-8401 Fax: (865) 576-5728 Email: [email protected] Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-94-16S Nuclear Science: Developing Technology to Reduce
    United States General Accounting Office Supplement to a Report to the Chairman, GAO Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives Decmeber 1993 NUCLEAR SCIENCE Developing Technology to Reduce Radioactive Waste May Take Decades and Be Costly 6 GAOLRCED-94-16s Notice: This is a reprint of a GAO report. FOREWORD A number of concepts have been proposed that, if found to be technically and economically feasible, might reduce the volume and radioactive life of wastes destined for burial in a deep geological repository. These concepts involve transmuting (changing) constituents of the waste into elements with shorter radioactive lives or to nonradioactive elements through nuclear action in a reactor or an accelerator. At the request of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, we reviewed five transmutation concepts --three using reactors and two using accelerators. The results of our review are contained in our report entitled Nuclear Science: Developinu Technolouv to Reduce Radioactive Waste Mav Take Decades and Be Costly (GAO/RCED-94-16). This supplement to the report provides a more detailed description of concepts being proposed for transmuting commercial spent nuclear fuel. The supplement contains information about the performance of the five transmutation concepts based on information supplied by the proponents of each concept in various reports or through interviews. Estimated costs and schedules are meant only to provide some indication of the magnitudes involved. Costs do not include escalation effects or discounting in a consistent way. Processing times do not include the effects of changing isotopic composition of the materials transmuted.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jules Horowitz Reactor Research Project
    EPJ Web of Conferences 115, 01003 (2016) DOI: 10.1051/epjconf/201611501003 © Owned by the authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2016 nd 2 Int. Workshop Irradiation of Nuclear Materials: Flux and Dose Effects November 4-6, 2015, CEA – INSTN Cadarache, France The Jules Horowitz Reactor Research Project: A New High Performance Material Testing Reactor Working as an International User Facility – First Developments to Address R&D on Material Gilles BIGNAN1, Christian COLIN1, Jocelyn PIERRE1, Christophe BLANDIN1, Christian GONNIER1, Michel AUCLAIR2, Franck ROZENBLUM2 1 CEA-DEN-DER, JHR Project (Cadarache, France) 2 CEA-DEN-DRSN, Service d'Irradiations en Réacteurs et d'Etudes Nucléaires, SIREN (Saclay, France) The Jules Horowitz Reactor (JHR) is a new Material Testing Reactor (MTR) currently under construction at CEA Cadarache research center in the south of France. It will represent a major research infrastructure for scientific studies dealing with material and fuel behavior under irradiation (and is consequently identified for this purpose within various European road maps and forums; ESFRI, SNETP…). The reactor will also contribute to medical Isotope production. The reactor will perform R&D programs for the optimization of the present generation of Nuclear Power Plans (NPPs), will support the development of the next generation of NPPs (mainly LWRs) and also will offer irradiation capabilities for future reactor materials and fuels. JHR is fully optimized for testing material and fuel under irradiation, in normal, incidental and accidental situations: with modern irradiation loops producing the operational condition of the different power reactor technologies ; with major innovative embarked in-pile instrumentation and out-pile analysis to perform high- quality R&D experiments ; with high thermal and fast neutron flux capacity and high dpa rate to address existing and future NPP needs.
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]
  • Proliferation Resistance of the Fuel Cycle for the Integral Fast Reactor
    PROLIFERATION RESISTANCE OF THE FUEL CYCLE,, FOR THE INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR* *' • "' 30 833 Leslie Burris Argonne National Laboratory OSTI Chemical Technology Division 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 To be presented at GLOBAL '93 International Conference on Future Nuclear Systems: Emerging Fuel Cycles and Waste Disposal Options September 12-17,1993 Seattle, WA The submitted manuscript has been authored by a contractor of the U. S- Government under contract No. W-3M09-ENG-38. Accordingly, tht U. S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royaity-free ticente to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do to, for U. S. Government purposes. *Work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program, under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38. PH3TRIBUTION OP THIS DOOUMENT IS UNLIMITED t PROLIFERATION RESISTANCE OF THE FUEL CYC! P FOR THE INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR Leslie Burn's Argonne National Laboratory Chemical Technology Division 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 ABSTRACT discharged fuel. Yielding only partially decontaminated uranium and plutonium products, it promises high Argonne National Laboratory has developed an resistance to clandestine diversion or overt, state- electrorefining pyrochemical process for recovery and supported diversion of plutonium for production of recycle of metal fuel discharged from the Integral Fast nuclear weapons. Reactor (IFR).' This inherently low decontamination process has an overall decontamination factor of only In 1986, a study of the proliferation risks of a about 100 for the plutonium metal product. As a result, similar pyrochemical process for discharged IFR fuel atl of the fuel cycle operations must be conducted in was conducted by International Energy Associates heavily shielded cells containing a high-purity argon Limited.3 The conclusion was that "Overall, there is no atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status
    Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: 8 History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel A research report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials February 2010 Research Report 8 International Panel on Fissile Materials Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel www.fissilematerials.org February 2010 © 2010 International Panel on Fissile Materials ISBN 978-0-9819275-6-5 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License. To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 Table of Contents About the IPFM i 1 Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Frank von Hippel 1 2 Fast Breeder Reactors in France Mycle Schneider 17 3 India and Fast Breeder Reactors M. V. Ramana 37 4 Japan’s Plutonium Breeder Reactor and its Fuel Cycle Tatsujiro Suzuki 53 5 The USSR-Russia Fast-Neutron Reactor Program Gennadi Pshakin 63 6 Fast Breeder Reactors in the United Kingdom Walt Patterson 73 7 Fast Reactor Development in the United States Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, and Frank von Hippel 89 Contributors 113 Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Figures Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Figure 1.1 Plutonium breeding. 3 Figure 1.2 History of the price of uranium. 6 Figure 1.3 Funding in OECD countries. 7 Figure 1.4 Dose rate of separated transuranics.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Program
    PRELIMINARY PROGRAM 55th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society 22nd Biennial Campus Radiation Safety Officers Meeting (American Conference of Radiological Safety) 27 June - 1 July 2010 Salt Palace Convention Center Salt Lake City, Utah Key Dates Current Events/Works-In-Progress Deadline . .28 May Social/Technical Preregistration Deadline . .31 May HPS Annual Meeting Preregistration Deadline . 31 May PEP Preregistration Deadline . .31 May Hotel Registration Deadline . 5 June AAHP Courses . 26 June Professional Enrichment Program . 27 June - 1 July HPS 55th Annual Meeting . 27 June - 1 July American Board of Health Physics Written Exam . 28 June Registration Hours and Location Registration at the Salt Palace Convention Center - Foyer of Exhibit Hall A Saturday, 26 June . 2:00 - 5:00 pm Sunday, 27 June . 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday, 28 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Tuesday, 29 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Wednesday, 30 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Thursday, 1 July . 8:00 - 11:00 am Saturday Saturday AAHP Courses will take place in the Hilton Hotel Sunday - Thursday All PEPs, CELs and Sessions will be at the Salt Palace Convention Center HPS Secretariat 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd. Suite 402 McLean, VA22101 (703) 790-1745; FAX: (703) 790-2672 Email: [email protected]; Website: www.hps.org 1 Table of Contents Important Events . 6 General Information . 7 Hotel Reservation Information . 7 Tours and Events Listing . 9 Scientific Program . 12 Placement Information . 32 AAHP Courses . 33 Professional Enrichment Program . 34 Continuing Education Lecture Abstracts . 46 Annual Meeting Registration Form . 48-49 CURRENT EVENTS/WORKS-IN-PROGRESS The submission form for the Current Events/Works-in-Progress poster session is on the Health Physics Society Website at www .hps .org under the Salt Lake City Annual Meeting section .
    [Show full text]
  • Pandora's False Promises the Integral Fast Reactor
    PANDORA’S FALSE PROMISES THE INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR: FACTS AND MYTHS A Beyond Nuclear Fact Sheet WWW.BEYONDNUCLEAR.ORG [email protected] AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE Pandora’s Promise is a new documentary that claims nuclear power should be embraced as a solution to climate change. While repeating many of the known propaganda lines of the nuclear industry and its boosters, the film also touts the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) as the overlooked savior of nuclear power. This fact sheet is intended to set the record straight on the IFR. Beyond Nuclear recommends that any viewing of Pandora’s Promise be done from an informed position and with a great deal of skepticism. We recommend an alternative film, The Atomic States of America, available at: www.specialtystudios.com/page.asp?content_id=33502 screened at Sundance in 2012. THE BASICS The Integral Fast Reactor: • is a sodium-cooled reactor that is fueled with a metallic alloy of uranium and plutonium. • is a fast reactor — i.e. neutrons are not slowed down — and “breeds” or creates more plutonium than is used as fuel. • is integral because it operates in conjunction with an on-site “pyroprocessing” facility to separate plutonium and other long-lived isotopes from spent fuel. The transmutation process also converts the long-lived waste radioisotopes into shorter-lived waste products. • was developed as a prototype at the Argonne National Laboratory between 1983 and 1994 but much of its technology was based on development programs used in the 1950s. • was canceled under the Clinton administration due to its proliferation risks and high cost.
    [Show full text]
  • The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR): an Optimized Source for Global Energy Needs
    The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR): An Optimized Source for Global Energy Needs Charles Archambeau1, Randolph Ware2,3, Tom Blees1, Barry Brook4, Yoon Chang5, Jerry Peterson6, Robert Serafin3, Joseph Shuster1, Evgeny Velikhov7,8, Tom Wigley3 1Science Council for Global Initiatives, 2Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, 3National Center for Atmospheric Research, 4University of Adelaide, 5Argonne National Laboratory, 6University of Colorado 7Kurchatov Institute, 8Russian Academy of Sciences February 2011 Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................................. 1 Nuclear Power Reactors: History and Status.................................................................................. 5 Pyroprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel for Reactor Recycling ....................................................... 6 Integral Fast Reactors: Basic Features............................................................................................ 8 Applications and Costs ................................................................................................................. 12 References..................................................................................................................................... 17 Glossary .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]